Joseph Mutuura Mberia v Council, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology [2019] KEELRC 1143 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court awarded a dismissed JKUAT lecturer 12 months' salary because his employer dismissed him for reasons he was never told.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suspension and disciplinary process accorded with due process under the CBA and Employment Act
The delay beyond the 90-day CBA limit was occasioned by the Claimant's own litigation restraining the suspension, so he was the author of his own misfortune; the charge of inimical conduct was understandable from the suspension letter.
The Claimant sued to restrain his suspension, which caused the delay; a letter from the UASU-JKUAT Chapter confirmed the pending case caused it. The court found the 'inimical conduct' charge equated to gross misconduct and was explained, so the Claimant could not claim he did not understand it.
Whether the employer proved valid reasons for termination under sections 41 and 43 of the Employment Act
The termination was unfair because the reasons for dismissal differed from those in the suspension letter and charge sheet, and the Claimant had no opportunity to respond to the actual reason.
Section 41(1) requires an employer to explain reasons for termination; section 43(1) requires the employer to prove them. RW1 admitted the dismissal was for lack of discipline and commitment, allegations different from those the Claimant responded to, including an unresponded breach-of-integrity charge in the charge sheet.
Whether the Claimant was discriminated against as a union official
The claim failed for lack of sufficient evidence; the Claimant was treated the same as his deputy, who was reinstated only because he moved to court promptly.
The Claimant did not state specific instances constituting discrimination. His treatment was the same as Naphtali Muga Rugara's except that Rugara moved to court immediately and was reinstated. The Respondent did not hinder union activities, and access orders had been obtained when access was denied.
Legal principles established
#- Where the reasons for dismissal differ from the reasons indicated in the suspension letter and charge sheet, and the employee had no opportunity to respond to the actual reason, the employer has not proved valid reasons under section 43(1) and the termination is unfair.
- A claim of discrimination or breach of constitutional rights must be pleaded with specificity, identifying the instances of violation and the constitutional provisions infringed.
Court orders
#- 1.Compensation for loss of employment of 12 months' gross salary, Kshs.2,160,336.00 (Kshs.180,028.00 x 12 months)
- 2.The respondent shall pay the claimant's costs of the suit
- 3.Interest shall accrue on the decretal sum from the date of judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Employment and Labour Relations Court jurisdiction over a claim for unfair termination of employment under the Employment Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Joseph Mutuura Mberia v Council, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology [2019] KEELRC 1143 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Cause No 638 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2019/1143/eng@2019-07-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.